Ex Parte Madsen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 3, 2019

14485885 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/485,885 09/15/2014
96537 7590 04/05/2019
BEUS SE WOLTER SANKS & MAIRE
Mail Stop AG
390 N. ORANGE A VE, SUITE 2500
ORLANDO, FL 32801
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kristian Lehmann Madsen
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2012P21710US (171) 6856
EXAMINER
LEE,JAEYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@patentorlando.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISTIAN LEHMANN MADSEN
Appeal2018-005096
Application 14/485,885
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREYB. ROBERTSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy A/S) appeals
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13. We
have jurisdiction under 3 5 U.S. C. § 6(b ).
The Invention
The claims are to a method for forming a web of a wind turbine blade.
Claim 11 is illustrative:
1. A method for applying fibre material on a vertical surface
to form a web of a wind turbine blade, the method comprising:
positioning a vertical surface in a mould for a wind
turbine blade at a position corresponding to a position of a web
of the blade;
spraying an adhesive on the vertical surface;
Appeal 2018-005096
Application 14/485,885
applying fibre material on the sprayed surface directly in
the mould during layout of fibre material in the mould; and
injecting the fibre material on the vertical surface and in
the mould with a resin during a resin injection process.
Lemelson
Grimshaw
Baldwin
Azuma ( as translated) 1
Stiesdal
The References
us 3,616,070
us 5,352,306
US 2002/0117252 Al
JP 9-300476 A
EP 1310351 Al
The Rejections
Oct. 26, 1971
Oct. 4, 1994
Aug. 29,2002
Nov. 25, 1997
May 14, 2003
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
claims 1-8 and 11 over Winther-Jensen in view of Toshihiro, claims 9
and 12 over Winther-Jensen in view ofToshihiro, Grimshaw, andLemelson,
and claims 10 and 13 over Winther-Jensen in view ofToshihiro and
Baldwin.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the broadest
independent claim, i.e., claim 11. That claim requires spraying an adhesive
onto a vertical service and applying fiber material onto the sprayed surface.
To meet that claim requirement the Examiner relies upon T oshihiro (Ans. 3-
4 ).
Toshihiro feeds a glass or carbon fiber roving ( 51) from a roving
feeding means ( 5) and sprays it with resin ( from nozzles 41 and 4 2) and
ketone hardening agent ( from nozzle 4 3) as the roving feeding means ( 5)
1 The Examiner and the Appellant refer to Azuma and Stiesdal as,
respectively, Toshihiro and Winther-Jenson (Ans. 3; App. Br. 3). For
consistency, we likewise do so.
2
Appeal 2018-005096
Application 14/485,885
and nozzles (41--43) are moved by a robot hand (4) along a porous
mold (2)'s surface to form on that surface a fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP)
layer ( 6) which then is peeled from the surface to form an FRP molded
body(3) (,r,r 8-lO;Figs. 1, 3).
The Examiner concludes that "[t]he claims simply require spraying an
adhesive and applying fiber material" (Ans. 12).
The claims require spraying an adhesive onto a vertical surface and
applying fiber material onto the sprayed surface. Even if Toshihiro' s resin
and hardener are an adhesive, that claim requirement is not met by
T oshihiro' s spraying of the resin and hardener onto a fiber roving as the
fiber roving is applied to a vertical surface (if 9; Fig. 1 ).
Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis sufficient to
support a conclusion of obviousness of the Appellant's claimed method. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCP A 1967) ("A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art."). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION
Therejectionsunder35U.S.C. § 103(a)ofclaims 1-8and 11 over
Winther-Jensen in view ofToshihiro, claims 9 and 12 over Winther-Jensen
in view ofToshihiro, Grimshaw, andLemelson, and claims 10 and 13 over
Winther-Jensen in view of Toshihiro and Baldwin are reversed.
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
3